a discussion of karam testing and improving
transcript of audio
00:00 In this third and final segment of Karam’s case study, I will discuss his work in the DFA to FYC course using the scaffolded Design Process to transition from Project 3’s argumentative essay to a letter to a member of Congress in his redesign for Project 4.
00:16 In his essay, Karam had argued that it should be mandated that all physicians report to emergency room patients found to be intoxicated while driving.
00:24 While he was able to research and build an academic argument, Karam adapted his essay for a new rhetorical situation to affect change.
00:32 As the last two steps of the Design Process are to Test and to Improve, I will examine Karam’s Project Builder 3 in Design Journal 5
00:41 as well as his Project 4. These artifacts will show how self-reflection and feedback helped Karam to transition from Project 3 to Project 4.
00:53 It will also illustrate how Karam demonstrated the learning outcomes of the DFA to FYC. I’d like to begin by looking at the various components of the Design Step- Testing.
01:09 When Karam submitted his argumentative essay, it was also required that he simultaneously submit the 5th Design Journal and 3rd Project Builder.
01:17 Each of these elements had very specific tasks for reflecting on the work a student had done over the course of the Project.
01:23 They were especially important as the Design-Focused Approach emphasized process over product. These two artifacts gave students the space to demonstrate their writing.
01:33 The writing process, their writerly intentions, and rationalizing choices or ideating new ones for a future iteration. Design Journal 5 was a brief paragraph that A) the student could write up a justification for select rhetorical choices, B) acknowledge the value of the testing step in their design
01:52 process, C) reify the student’s intentions with their project, and D) reflect on their project’s goals, its planning, and overall success.
02:02 Project Builder 3 was a set of annotations to justify final decisions for the Project, and also A) choosing parts of the project that evidence rhetorical decision making for impact,
02:13 B) having the student explain elements and features of their project, C) showing where the student used feedback for revisions, and D) talking through how they believe parts of the project or the whole are effective on the audience.
02:27 Here we can see Karam’s Project Builder 3 where he created a set of self-reflective annotations. The first annotation Karam has written speaks to the rhetorical choices he made to place terminology and definitions through the essay.
02:41 He admits that he, “needed to introduce things but wait to explain them fully, to maximize placement in the paragraphs.”
02:50 He chose to do this so that terms and definitions would not “disrupt in the flow.” After reading over the annotations, a majority of them address inclusions in placement.
03:02 This signals to me that Karam was very aware of the need for logic and organization in his essay. This is likely the case for two reasons.
03:11 1) he is responding to the rhetorical situation, especially meeting the expectations of his audience, and 2) adapting genre conventions to compose a persuasive artifact.
03:21 In both instances, Karam is performing rhetorical flexibility through the Design Process. In early analyses of his process with segments one and two, it was evident that Karam was negotiating between his process knowledge and content knowledge.
03:35 Here in the essay, he does the same. When he responds to audience expectations, he is developing an essay for a narrow group of readers, who are physicians, lawmakers, and academics.
03:46 Therefore, Karam must balance what he wants to present in the artifact, also be mindful of the expertise his audience already possesses on the matter.
03:54 Ultimately, what kind of impact can he make? How critical is it that Karam show a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter to establish credibility with his audience and maintain their interest to keep reading?
04:05 In reflecting on the essay he has just written, Karam recognizes the various choices he could have made versus those he did in fact make.
04:13 In “Embracing Wicked Problems: The Turn to Design in Composition Studies,” Richard Marbeck asserts, “through the activity of designing, we make real both our world of artifacts and ourselves as members of that world.
04:26 People who become who are through our interactions with each of the artifacts we place into that world.” Although this observation may refer to objects of design on the surface, it very much applies to the situation where Karam developed his essay.
04:41 Karam is joining a larger conversation about medical ethics by researching the legal, moral, and ethical aspects in taking a position.
04:48 He is becoming who he is. Through his interactions, creating his own artifact, and using the influence of the artifacts he researched.
04:56 Finally, Karam is affecting the ways others interact with and react to the issue because of reading his essay. If I move on to the next element of Testing, I have shown a screenshot of one instructional annotation I left in his essay.
05:11 For some context, I had already provided most of the feedback in the first project builder draft so that Karam could make edits with the objectives of Project 3 in mind.
05:20 With the final iteration of the essay, I still responded with some added directives to help frame Karam’s approach to the fourth Project, the redesign.
05:28 In my feedback, I look at one paragraph of the essay. A body paragraph where Karam has focused on laws and guidelines already established on the issue.
05:39 It strengthened his credibility to build his case but also provides necessary background information to create a fuller picture for his readers.
05:47 In one of the last points made in the paragraph, Karam explains that physicians carry the sole burden of deciding whether to report.
05:55 He writes, “this is exacerbated by the little guidance from state regulation and thus puts a tremendous amount of stress on physicians and leaves them legally liable.
06:04 Although driving is considered a privilege for many, studies show that current social structures suggest that driving is an essential function of our society and day-to-day.
06:14 To make matters worse, our federal and local state laws make little effort to support those who can no longer drive, thereby foregoing an essential pillar of independence.
06:25 Suppose there is an elderly patient recently diagnosed with acute hearing loss. Driving may be a huge source of freedom and empowerment for that patient.
06:33 In an attempt to preserve the patient’s well-being, the physician may remove the patient’s right to drive, despite associated risks, as it can have a huge psychological impact.
06:43 In addition, it may prevent the elderly patient from accessing the medical or social services they otherwise need and are committed to.”
06:52 Without digressing too much from the point in this analysis, which is to examine Karam’s use of the Design Process, I do want to discuss the excerpt in terms of his intentions as a writer, building a credible argument.
07:04 Karam is drawing from examples of laws that intercede in the practice of medicine, as well as the complete lack of laws, which leave physicians open to any number of challenges.
07:13 Thus, referencing familiar situations like the dynamic between physicians and their elderly patients is relevant for his essay. However, I have used this excerpt to illustrate how Karam justifies his decision to include the example, but has not made a clear enough case for how it informs his position
07:31 to support mandates for physician reporting. He had he added a sentence or two to explain what the elderly situation does anecdotally for the need for universal mandates, he would have had greater rhetorical impact on his readers.
07:44 In one of Karam’s annotations in the third Project Builder, he did in fact acknowledge the challenges such anecdotal evidence created.
07:51 In developing the essay, he questions how to incorporate and use effectively the various resources he found. He questions, “did I want to use them as an argument or part of an argument or is it better to use it to defend and explain a counter-argument.
08:07 I ended up doing a mix of both.” Thus, the design process- Ideating, Planning, Prototyping, and Testing thus far has positioned Karam to move back and forth in a recursive loop.
08:19 He knows what he needs to include to support his position, but is still working out how to achieve effectiveness through clear and direct writing.
08:27 Additionally, the anecdotal evidence that shares current practices that are not regulated by federal law does other work within Karam’s essay.
08:35 It nods towards a different point he will make about a physician’s moral obligations. Regardless of the law, a physician is a thinking, feeling human, and inevitably has emotions about their patients and their lifestyle.
08:47 In the absence of laws intended to protect citizens and dictate how a physician must him. So, to return to my feedback on this point, I show Karam the need to be as explicit as possible and not leave room for any possible
09:12 misunderstanding. I write, “you end on a note that makes me think that the elderly should be able to drive even if they pose a threat to others.
09:20 The argument and ideas themselves are situated fine in the paragraph and certainly have validity but I’m not sure that you’re furthering your assertion on physician reporting.
09:30 Again, I get the sense they should not be elderly or have their driving restricted. I’m left asking some questions.”
09:38 I leave it to Karam to go back and re-read this paragraph to determine what his intentions were in writing this.
09:44 Does it still stand or in the redesign of the project for a new audience and modality will it be substituted with different evidential statements?
09:53 In P4, Karam could make a stronger case if he adjusted language and added some clarification. The final component of testing is Karam’s 5th Design Journal, seen here at the bottom of the page.
10:05 He has decided that the 4th project would be a letter to a member of Congress to advocate for a universal mandate requiring physicians to report when a patient is drunk and involved in an accident or has the potential to harm other civilians.
10:18 The original artifact proposed a solution to the problem and presented all necessary supports to build a convincing case. However, the letter functions as a call to action and as such will need very clear cases and examples, especially those that carry the emotional weight to implore the reader to effect
10:34 change. The letter takes the solution to an audience with the power to do something with it. So situating Kram’s reflection as a bridge from his work on Project 3 to 4 is imperative.
10:46 He writes, “I think what could have used some additional work is addressing the audience part and making it more clear.
10:52 This is good, though, because it leaves me with something to make even better and clearer in P4.” He acknowledges what might be improved in the next iteration but has important rhetorical circumstances to consider:
11:05 Audience and purpose on what is essentially a project continuum. The Design Process is particularly useful in this part of the project.
11:33 because had the 3rd project been unrelated to the to the next project, Karam would not need to think about how he addressed his audience deliberately. he might have focused his self-evaluation on other features of his essay or not performed a self-check at all. Working through the tasks in the Design Journals and Project Builders as tools of the Design Process prompts Karam to do this intentional work. As a result, he can self-assess to inform his writing practice. Which brings this case study segment to the final step, to improve.
11:45 Here you can see the letter Karam wrote to a member of Congress. He has employed a fairly traditional letter format to present the reasoning and evidence from his argumentative essay.
11:56 But in this redesign, his audience and purpose have changed. He was able to achieve some concision having reduced the essay from roughly 8 pages to 2.
12:05 And in doing so, preserve the most poignant facts to have rhetorical impact. Right away, he states the circumstances for writing the letter and what he hopes to accomplish.
12:14 He writes, “I implore you to take action to mandate all physicians to report intoxicated driving patients. The implications of this issue are too important to ignore.
12:24 I strongly believe that by implementing stricter regulations and penalties for drunk driving, we can save lives and create a safer environment for everyone on the road.”
12:33 In the following paragraphs, Karam presents compelling facts about drunk driving cases and drunk driving related fatalities. He also situates his position within a growing trend across the U.S.
12:45 with special regard to other states that have already taken action on the matter and required that physicians report impaired drivers.
12:52 Then, he moves on to ethical matters pertaining to physician-patient confidentiality in light of probability that the patient may harm someone else.
13:00 He sets up a strong case that equates the mandated reporting of communicable is driving impaired by alcohol or other substances.
13:11 So it is apparent that Karam has mined his argumentative essay for the most impactful statements. He had also concluded the essay with an implication of his proposed solution.
13:21 He writes, “legally physicians and their teams, as well as the entire health care system. Are protected from any legal troubles, as all instances must be reported, regardless of circumstance, while a report to a driver’s licensing authority might be a loss of driving privileges for one party and
13:38 potentially have a huge impact on their health indirectly, it would mean the patient and the public are both protected and in the best possible way.”
13:48 He makes an appeal to logic and emotion. Of course, mandates would solve the problem by providing a guideline for physicians to adhere, reducing their mental and emotional conflict.
13:59 But most importantly, the public would be safer, in a safer condition, as risks would be greatly reduced. However, in the letter, Karam concludes that the mandates would be, “crucial for the well-being of the patients and for the safety of communities across the U.S.
14:16 This is a serious, serious public health and safety concern, and we must do more to intervene. I implore you to act and propose legislation requiring all physicians to report any intoxicated driving patients.
14:28 Your leadership is needed to ensure that drunk drivers are held accountable and that intoxicated driving cases in the United States are reduced.”
14:36 His language is much more active in generating a sense of urgency. He demonstrates rhetorical agency in making linguistic choices that imply urgency in the letter.
14:45 Karam also shows that he is rhetorically responsible by participating in a critical conversation that addresses adverse consequences on large populations of people.
14:55 He determined a niche issue but was quickly able to show how it impacted not only the field of medicine but the vulnerability of civilians who could be tragically affected.
15:06 he employed language throughout the letter that showcased his professional and personal connection to the issue. He did not just choose a topic at random but deliberated about an ethical matter that is often overlooked in the practice of medicine.
15:18 This was important to Karam as he was beginning to think about Medical school and career paths for himself. During a discussion with Karam, he admitted to me, “until the very end of the semester, it was mostly objective to me.
15:31 Until the very end, when it became subjective and we had to be persuasive more than just arguing. In other classes, there definitely wasn’t as much like personal perspective as there is in this class.
15:43 I think because this class is tied with discourse communication.” So, I recognize his instinct to follow questions he has and perform research to learn about the field he is interested in and his place in that field.
15:58 Although this particular FYC course was not entirely focused on discourse community, students were absolutely given the freedom to choose topics that were meaningful to them.
16:08 For Karam, he used the chance to do some work in his future field. He was rhetorically responsible for ethically integrating relevant sources to be persuasive and effective in garnering the interest of his audience, especially in light of the possibility that he could be speaking to a constituent who
16:25 he could partner with in future endeavors. A member of Congress would certainly heed his call and consider the matter, based upon Karam’s diligence in handling the material.
16:35 And finally, and most importantly, for the improved step of the Design Process, Karam demonstrated rhetorical revision in his ability to revise his 3rd Project and adapt it for a new audience.
16:47 through a new genre of writing.